45 Tenn. 168 | Tenn. | 1867
delivered the’ opinion of the Court.
This is an action of trespass, brought in the Circuit Court of Davidson, by the plaintiff in error, as administrator of his wife, for the use of himself, Catharine Bream and Bridget Bream, minor children of Bridget Bream, dec’d, against R. L. Brown, J. P. Forbes and W. E. Evans. The gravamen of the charge is, that the defendants were druggists, and prescriptionists in the City of Nashville, and the plaintiff’s intestate, being sick, applied to them for a medicine, having a written prescription from a physician, for the medicine known as Colycinth; and the defendant Evans, the •clerk and the agent of the defendants, Brown and Forbes, in preparing and mixing up said prescription, did it so carelessly and negligently, that he mixed up and prepared other medicines, which were poisonous,
The important and only question presented for our consideration is, whether this action can be maintained. Sec. 2291, of the Code, provides as follows: “The right of action which a person who dies of injuries received from another, or whose death is caused from the neglegent, acts or omissions of another, would have had against the wrong-doer, in case death had not ensued, shall not abate, nor be extinguished by his death, but shall pass to his personal representatives, for the benefit of his widow or his next kin, free from the claims of creditors.” This section and the section following, 2292 of the Code, embody the provisions of An Act passed the 1st of February, 1850. By the common law, all personal actions for wrongs or injuries, abated by the death of the party. To remedy this and throw the protecting power of the law, around the citizen, the Act of 1st February, 1850, was passed, .which enacts that, “In all and every case where any person shall come to his death by injuries received from another, whether the same were inflicted feloniously or not, for which injuries, in case death had not resulted, an action of damages would lie at law, the personal representative of the person thus killed, shall have the right to institute a suit for the damages in either of the Circuit Courts in the State,” etc.
It is insisted that tbe word person, in this section of the Code, does not include tbe wife, as this section, by its terms, means tbe deceased must have left a widow, and next of kin; that section 2291 is explained by sec. 2292; that in tbe term next of kin, in tbe last section referred to, tbe language is: “Tbe action may be brought by tbe personal representative
To this construction of sec. 2291, we cannot assent. To ascertain the intention of the Legislature, in construing a statute of doubtful meaning, it is well settled that, for the purpose of arriving at the legislative intent, all Acts on the same subject matter are to be taken together and examined. In order to arrive at the true meaning, when there are different statutes in pari materia, though made at different periods or expired, shall be taken and construed together as explanatory: Sedgewick on Cons. and Stat. Law, 247; 20 Johnson, 735.
Apply this principle to the construction of sec. 2291 of the Code. By the Act of February 1, 1850, the right of action was given in all and every ease, where any person should come to his death by injuries received from another, whether feloniously inflicted or not, and for which, in case death had not resulted, an action for damages would lie, the personal representatives shall have the right to bring the suit.
It will be seen by this Act of February 1, 1850, that a new cause of action was created, unknown to the com
We admit the correctness of the principle. The language is very broad; the word person being used, includes all classes, and every one is embraced, who, if death had not ensued, could have maintained an action. Section 2291 gives the right of action, and section 2292 provides the remedy. Could the wife, in this case, have sued, if she had survived the injury and permanent ill-health resulted? By the common law, the wife could not sue alone — she had to join with her husband — if the husband died, the right survived to her. By provision of section 2291, if a person injured had a right to sue, the action shall not abate. By reason 'of the coverture, the wife cannot sue alone — she must join with her husband; but the right of action springs from and out of her — the husband is the means by which that right is enforced. As in the case of infants, who must sue by their guardian .or next friend, and so in all the relations of life, where persons are under disabilities. The injury inflicted was to the wife. Can it be doubted, that if she had lived, she could have maintained the action?
The proposition is too plain for argument. The courts are alike open to the wife, as well as to the husband.
To hold that the Legislature did not intend to embrace the wife in this section, would be giving a narrow and close construction not contemplated by the framers of the
We are sustained in this view of sec. 2291 of the Code, by the decisions of the Courts of New York, Illinois and Ohio, where acts of similar import have been passed, and received a judicial construction: 21 Barber, 245; 28 Barber, 41; 15 New York, 482; 24 New York, 471; 18 Ill., 358; 7 Ohio, 385. See, also, 5 Wallace, 90.
The Circuit Judge erred in sustaining the demurrer to the declaration. The judgment will,., therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded.